over the teachers and posted guards in the classrooms, set up concentration camps, and interned businessmen after holding brief onesided trials without habeas corpus.

The invaders put posters listing many offenses for which citizens could be punished. One of them read:

25. Publishing or circulating or having in his possession with intent to publish or circulate, any printed or written matter * * * hostile, detrimental or disrespectful *** to the government of any other of the United Nations.

The third practice seizure under the United Nations flag occurred at Watertown, N.Y., on August 20, 1952, more than a year later than the first ones. It followed the same pattern set in the earlier seizures at California and Texas.

INTERNATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE

From a U.N.-advertised book, "The United Nations 10-Year Legal Progress," a collection of essays published in The Hague, 1956, is taken from the heading, "The Development and Codification of International Law," pages 46-47, a quote by Dr. R. Cordova of Mexico, one of the 15 judges of the United Nations International Court. Í quote:

In accordance with the terms of the San Francisco charter, the aim of the United Nations is the Constitution of a worldwide union for the maintenance of international peace and order by means of the political organization of force. None of the articles of the charter subordinates the use of force to the law; reference is made to peace-loving nations, but never to law-abiding nations; the charter does not require that the use of force be subjected to the principles of justice or to the decisions of a judicial organ empowered to define the lawful and to distinguish it from the unlawful and to maintain the relations between states within the limits of the law.

The San Francisco charter is merely a renewed attempt to establish an international political regime based on the balance of power, without any foundation upon the supreme authority of the law. The five most important states of the world imposed upon all other nations a compulsory political jurisdiction of an international tribunal, thus making it impossible for themselves and for other nations to establish the rule of international relations between the states.

Dr. Marek Korowicz, member of the communistic Polish delegation to the U.N.-eluded his guards and sought refuge in the United States-testified:

The Communist Party regards the U.N. as the most important platform for Soviet propaganda in the world *** the U.N. offered a platform for them to preach to the entire world and carry on their subversive propaganda.

The war criminal tribunals in Germany have set a precedent of international jurisprudence. The persons who executed the policies of a regime dictated by "the conscience of society" in their own country, carrying out orders of superiors, were summarily tried, convicted and sentenced. The situation could possibly have been reversed and another conscience of society could have prevailed, to the detriment of the interest of the United States.

Thus, the current wave of internationalism and the existence of the Genocide Pact, which would effect us materially, gives thought for sober considered reflection. It is hoped that the sponsors of Senate Resolution 94 are proceeding with a clear conscience and are prepared to accept the fruits of a shackled Constitution.

FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES

The United States has become involved financially all over the world. Just recently the World Bank has asked that 68 member nations ratify the agreement for the International Development Agency.

We have spent taxpayers' money contrary to the Constitution, we believe, to establish industries in foreign lands. Billions of dollars have been appropriated for the Marshall plan. And our gold reserves are in a precarious condition. With all the ramifications involved with the myriad of foreign transactions it will assuredly open a Pandora's box for citing cases before this World Court. The decisions of the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Pink (315 U.S. 203) and U.S. v. Belmont (301 U.S. 324) are interesting from this point of view. Recently a meeting of the northern Virginia charter of the United World Federalists was held. The starry-eyed proposition was advanced that if we stopped spending for our defenses we could eliminate the income taxes. Plans were presented for getting favorable action on this bill. It is frightening to realize the thinking of some of our citizens who have so much to lose if this Connally amendment is eliminated.

AFFECTING U.S. INTERESTS

One is more horrified, when he reads in the papers statements by persons in position to use tax-free money to espouse their liberal thinking, such as the following quotes from Robert M. Hutchins of the Fund for the Republic, a gross misnomer. I quote:

Traditional ideas of freedom and justice need thorough reexamination in the light of changing world conditions.

In the Bartkus case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last March (1959), Justice Frankfurter opined that—

The Anglo-American system of law is based not on transcendental revelation but upon the conscience of society-ascertained as best it may be by a tribunal disciplined for the task and environed by the best safeguards for disinterestedness and detachment.

Does not this opinion border on the fears expressed by many at these hearings regarding the thinking of the judges of the World Court?

Much has been said about the Panama Canal and the treaties we have with the Government of Panama, and how the World Court would affect the interests of the United States. Well, the Monroe Doctrine, which Mr. Mikoyan has so recently flaunted, and other treaties, have long ago established our interests there. But for the sake of political expediency, and an adjustment to what Justice Frankfurter prefers to call "the conscience of society," and what Robert Hutchins believes in, "traditional American ideas need to be reexamined." Certain supine statesmen and editorial writers suggest the idea that we internationalize the Panama Canal. Past experience and history prove that the first sign of weakness by a nation is the signal for a stronger nation to exercise possession and ultimate power, one over the other.

With this sort of thinking abroad in this Nation, it is believed that this committee should well understand that it would be very easy, if Senate Resolution 94 is approved, to see the first break in the dike of freedom in the United States.

REASONS FOR NOT APPROVING SENATE RESOLUTION 94

Many reasons have been advanced to this committee in opposition to Senate Resolution 94, with which we heartily concur.

We would suggest that this measure be defeated for the following

reasons:

1. All appearances indicate a first step to internationalize the citizens of the world into a one-world dictatorship.

2. Our American system of jurisprudence would be substituted to an embryonic system of doubtful value.

3. The United States would have too little to say about the selection of judges for the World Court.

4. It will impinge the sovereignty of the United States.

5. There will be no appellate tribunal or provisions for same.

6. Nomination procedure is faulty and inimical to the interests of the United States; the judges take no oath and impeachment proceedings are nil.

7. Secret hearings possible behind closed doors and because of appointive procedures, it is believed that judges will be ones who are unfamiliar with an environment of freedom and liberty, thereby resulting in decisions based on popular world sociological and ideological philosophy.

RETAINING OUR FREEDOMS

George Washington was very meticulous about becoming involved in foreign intrigue, apropos his quoted statements:

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. * * * Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the purpose, to surrender their interests. *** If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attiude as will cause neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the possibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us possible provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantage of so peculiar a situation; why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why be interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It has been said that the World Court has no power to enforce its edicts once arrived at. Our President has stated that if the United States would accept a rule of law and withdraw our self-judging aspect, it would strength the position of the United States. It has been stated that the judges appointed to this Court could be trusted, that no doubt they were men of integrity. However, it was Thomas Jefferson who stated that he did not want to take any chances with "government by men" in place of "government by law." He said:

It would be a dangerous delusion if our confidence in the men of our choice should silence our fears for the safety of our rights. Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded on jealousy, not in confidence. It is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power. *** In questions of power, then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

And a more significant foresight of Mr. Jefferson was, "When all government shall be drawn to Washington, as the center of power, it will become venal and oppressive." We have experienced some of this wisdom, so let us not fall into a "one world concentration of power" trap. Let us retain the Connally amendment, and our freedoms which by hard experience and hardships we have been able to maintain. Let us not be taken in by the power play of the United World Federalists. These United States were founded as a Christian nation, and notwithstanding some efforts to change it, the Supreme Court has constantly held this to be true. The United Nations is composed of nations, some of which do not believe in God, a sort of mixture of the true and the false. This World Court will be the heartbeat of a non-Christian alliance. Thus, we wish to close with the prayerful admonition of our beloved first President:

Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to *** entertain brotherly love and affection for their fellow citizens * * * to love mercy and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author *** without a humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus

Christ, our Lord.

And to this we say a reverent amen.

Mr. Chairman, we thank your committee for this opportunity to express our views.

Senator GREEN. Thank you. I understand, I hope correctly, that you are opposed in principle to the undertaking that we have been discussing.

Mr. SPIESS. That is correct; yes, sir.

Senator GREEN. Have you any questions?

Senator CARLSON. No, sir.

Senator GREEN. Thank you. The next witness is Mrs. Myra C. Hacker, chairman, foreign affairs, National Association of Pro America, West Englewood, N.J. Mrs. Hacker, will you proceed, please?

STATEMENT OF MRS. MYRA C. HACKER, CHAIRMAN, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PRO AMERICA

Mrs. HACKER. Thank you, Senator. I concede it a great honor, privilege, and pleasure to present my testimony to this distinguished committee. I am Myra C. Hacker. I reside at 1545 Warwick Avenue, West Englewood, N.J. I am speaking for the National Association of Pro America. I am offering for the record in addition to my own statement a statement of the national president of Pro America, a statement from the various State chapters of New Jersey, Texas, west Texas and New Mexico, Oklahoma, the State of Washington, and California.

I will start reading from my statement.

OPERATION OF THE RESERVATION

The Connally amendment or reservation permits the United States to decide what disputes it will submit to the International Court of Justice. Six words the Connally amendment-tacked on to the Morse

World Court resolution, 1946, provided that America would not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States as determined by the United States. These six words stand between our country and inevitable additional loss of sovereignty; their deletion could hasten our entry into world government.

Senator Humphrey introduced Senate Resolution 94 March 24, 1959, which seeks to repeal the Connally amendment, that is to strike the six words "as determined by the United States" from the former 1946 resolution of Senator Morse.

By so doing the Humphrey resolution aims simply to take away from the United States the right formerly reserved to our own country to determine which cases affecting the United States and its citizens should come before the International Court of Justice. This is the crux of the Humphrey amendment as embodied in Senate Resolution 94.

RESOLUTION SEEKS TO REACTIVATE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT

It is apparent that the Humphrey resolution seeks to reactivate the International Court, which has admittedly settled less than one case a year since its inception some 13 years ago. In order to fill this empty court with cases and give it the authority to order us around and thus as they say, to "substitute rule by law for rule by terror," the first step would be to repeal the clause known as the Connally amendment, which reserves to the United States the right to determine which cases involving our country are domestic issues and therefore not subject to international jurisdiction.

In other words, the effort is being made to empower a body of 15 judges, 14 of them non-Americans, sitting in a foreign land, to decide what matters concerning the United States they shall pass judgment on-and to make those judgments binding upon all of us. Where, then, would be the sanctity of our own institutions?

Where would be our sovereign standing as a nation?

All great nations die from within-liberties are always surrendered under a delusion.

World peace is a consummation devoutly to be wished for, and rule by law is a principle to which our Nation has had a lifelong dedication, but the combining of the two phrases into a single shibboleth involves an oversimplification which is both misleading and dangerous. It also obscures a purpose which is far from simple or straightforward and which would, if achieved, spell disaster for our American way of life.

DIFFERING PRINCIPLES OF LAW

Americans are fond of slogans. They enjoy them without too much appreciation of their meaning and implication. We waged a war for democracy in World War I, which ended with a dictatorship in most of Europe. In World War II we fought for the so-called four freedoms and ended up with totalitarian powers dominating more than half the world with no God-given rights or liberties.

The new panacea is "world rule by law" which envisions a supercourt backed by a body of world law.